|
From: | Paul Menzel |
Subject: | Re: [SPECIFICATION RFC] The firmware and bootloader log specification |
Date: | Fri, 4 Dec 2020 14:23:23 +0100 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.5.1 |
Dear Wim, dear Daniel, First, thank you for including all parties in the discussion. Am 04.12.20 um 13:52 schrieb Wim Vervoorn:
In my opinion coreboot’s format is lacking, that it does not record the timestamp, and the log level is not stored as metadata, but (in coreboot) only used to decide if to print the message or not.I agree with you. Using an existing standard is better than inventing a new one in this case. I think using the coreboot logging is a good idea as there is indeed a lot of support already available and it is lightweight and simple.
I agree with you, that an existing standard should be used, and in my opinion it’s Linux message format. That is most widely supported, and existing tools could then also work with pre-Linux messages.
Sean Hudson from Mentor Graphics presented that idea at Embedded Linux Conference Europe 2016 [1]. No idea, if anything came out of that effort. (Unfortunately, I couldn’t find an email. Does somebody have contacts at Mentor to find out, how to reach him?)
Kind regards, Paul[1]: http://events17.linuxfoundation.org/sites/events/files/slides/2016-10-12%20-%20ELCE%20-%20Shared%20Logging%20-%20Part%20Deux.pdf
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |